-7 karma · joined February 13, 2012
But knowing that many humans use the internet as a transport to a walled garden aware of their IRL identity and holding captive a heap of their personal data, this is frightening.
This article [1] is imho quite right, this is mostly a non-issue turned into PR.
1:http://rexriepe.com/2012/clever-pr-facebook-bends-a-non-stor...
But the sensationalist title is misleading, old style slavery is much more prevalent than this article let the reader believe, obvious cases are dubai and sex slaves, but there are more all across the world.
And there is the new style of slavery,the kind where people are free to get minimum wage to barely pay for food and shelter or maintaining themselves in debt, the kind where freedom is about choosing between brands or channels, choosing between a limited panel of wanna be leaders all funded by the same pocket.
That's said, what you stated is false,it's a known fact that the abolition of old style slavery was to replace it with a new from of slavery, namely minimum wage slavery, according to a then emerging economic context. Something along these lines: freed slaves have to find money to buy food and shelter and are offered minimum wage for jobs doing what they used to do when they were slave.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Coka_Tadasuke#Famous_cases
- suggest spelling corrections and alternative spellings - personalize your search by using information such as sites you’ve visited before - include synonyms of your search terms to find related results - find results that match similar terms to those in your query - search for words with the same stem, like "running" when you search for [ run ]
Looking for a film on the web = imdb no babies are born = no procreation
So let's search for "imdb no procreation": http://lmgtfy.com/?q=imdb+no+procreation and http://www.bing.com/search?q=imdb+no+procreation
Now let's turn off this fuzzy synonymous search, go on the results page for "the film where no more babies are born", click on "more search tools" in the sidebar and click "verbatim". Not only the actual results doesn't show up anymore but we now see this very story referenced several times further skewing the results towards confirmation bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb
I switched from metacrawler to google for my web searching in 1998, I can testify that it's getting worse and worse at providing relevant results for a while now and at the same time it gets better at tracking users and raising privacy concerns, censoring results, adding clutter, spam and ads, silently removing useful features. I've switched to duckduckgo in 2010 and rarely go back to google anymore.
See you can make money in a casino, some games offer better chances than other but in the end it's always the casino who makes the real money.
If you remember several years back when it was discovered that ads had become inefficient because people learned to filter them out after being exposed too much for too long but that if the ad came from a member of the social circle it bypassed this filter and has the potential go viral, which pretty much gave birth to so-called viral marketing.
Well it seems facebook is the realm of a combination of viral marketing (trying to pretend not to be an ad in disguise) and spammer strategy (a large enough number of potential marks insure some will fall for it). IINM this is what facebook currently pushes for in a renewed attempt to monetize their userbase.
This seems like a reasonable solution I said, because the real problem with facebook connect is that it links real world identities (or rather facebook profiles which is close enough to real world identities) to online activities that users don't necessarily want the world to know about. And while facebook uses this to collect even more data about its users, the users have no control over it
tl;dr: the real underlying problem of facebook connect is the same old "if you're not paying for it, then you're the product being sold".
The registration is often a barrier preventing people from using your service, and it's not even mandatory to have user management [1].
[1]: https://jobpoacher.com/blog/blog/2012/02/13/what-craigslist-...
"hey we have this fantastic service offering this and that, but we don't want you to use it (unless you register to a third party whose sole purpose is to collect as much personal data on you as possible and has a long history of privacy issues)". Best sales pitch ever.
I think it is right on. Both because the tool shapes the usage (if your only tool is hammer, all problems look like nails). I don't have one.
If you look at the famous example of the month of eternal september [1], the problem at hand showed a totally different picture, an artificially high number of newcomers overcharging the capacity of the community to properly teach them how to behave [2]. In short when your user base grows organically you have minimal bad behaviour.
Then again if you look at facebook itself you'll find more than the regular share of inane bs and bad behaviour.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September [2]: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html
Though they're not with him, Les stroud also has a support crew and a way to contact them in case of life-threatening emergency.
2) they can't offer such an option, facebook is a machine designed to collect, store, hold and aggregate user data and they built a business model out of it. Putting the user in control of its data is the opposite of what facebook wants. You can't really compare the subscription of news aggregator websites and an hypothetical subscription on facebook. Facebook is unique in the fact that it holds user personal data and has a strong grasp on it through heavy vendor lock-in, you can easily leave slashdot or reddit and get your news elsewhere from an alternative but you can't leave facebook easily because they have your data, data you need in your daily use and there's nowhere to go to to find an equivalent.
I don't appreciate the repeated attacks against personal freedom (they like to call it privacy) and against the internet and open web. I dislike the methods and techniques of manipulation they used.
For someone who had some experience of the internet it was quite obvious what was going to happen, history repeats itself, except that when microsoft tried to bypass the internet and build a microsoft network a.k.a. msn, included in windows, they failed hard.
Now with the critical mass and sheer momentum, everyone and their friends are asking to have the closed and proprietary facebooknet preloaded in their mobile device. But I won't be part of the effort to destroy the open internet, so I quit google and its free services and block everything facebook.
I trust facebook for snooping in on the data provided by 3rd party apps, they've been doing all the dirty tricks of the book since they started.
why no facebook account for me ? because it was obvious from the beginning where facebook was heading with a business rooted in linking real world identities and online activities. They are basically building a closed facebooknet to compete with the open web and internet. There's no way I would be part or support a closed and proprietary internet.
Let me point out a few things:
- google says it analyzes gmail contents algorithmically, but do we really know what they actually do ? - email being made out of secure or insecure protocols is irrelevant to gmail respecting privacy - it is not about email security, it's about privacy. - secure email is not a myth, see gpg - one individual who could gain access to a mailbox is not the same order of magnitude than a transnational corporation systematically going through inboxes of milions of people. - "Google becomes evil and steals all your email to do X "is not on your list of plausible threats because it's worded wrong, try "Google goes through all your email and adds it to the info they have on you to build a very detailed profile of you and your life" which goes on the confirmed list along with "people have been locked out of the gmail accounts without a valid reason" - Google is obviously about selling ads [1] and has to maintain trust from their users for this to work, it does not mean they have to respect people privacy, actually it even means the opposite, they have to breach on people's privacy and make it look so it won't hurt their users' trust. - gmail has default https, sure, but only after a high profile case of hacked gmail accounts made it to the medias. [2]
Lastly, about the advice to never use @gmail.com addresses, I wonder if using our own domain would protect us from google having the abilty to lock us out of our inbox.
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/microsoft-apple-and-google-wh... [2] http://www.physorg.com/news182629293.html
This makes a strong contender of gmail for privacy issues.